LexHOTEL & RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION AND ANR. versus STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
HOTEL & RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
v.
ST AR INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ORS
NOVEMBER 24, 2006
B
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] .
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997;
The Register of lnterco'!/Jf!Ct Agreements (Broadcasting and Cable
C Services) Regulation, 2004-Applicable to Commercial Consumer also.
D
E
F
Interpretation of Statutes ;
Orders-Issued under the statute-:to be read. conjointly. with g view to
give harmonious and purposive ~onstructlon ther~to . . '.
.
·
Definition of a term-cannot be used as a guide for· construction of a
same term in another statute particularly in a case where statutes have been
enacted for different purposes.
The questions for decision of the Supreme Court were :-
(i) Whether the members of Appellants Associations are consumers·and,
this, were entitled to invoke tlie jurisdict~onoCfDSAT in terms ofSection
14 ofTRAI Act?
(ii) Whether the Tariff Orders issued by TRAI on 15.01.2004 and
1.10.2004 are inapplicable to members of Appellants Associations, i.e., hotels
on the ground that those are commercial establishments? .
Answering the questions, the court
HELD 1.1. The owners of the hotels do 11ot come within the purview of
G definition of Multi System Operators but being members Of the hotel &
restaurant associations, are consumers. (614-D-G)
H
The State of Punjab v. Mis. Associated Hotels of India Ltd, [197211
SCC 472, Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd v. Lt. Governor of Delhi,
602
HOTEL&RESTAURANT ASSOCN. v. STAR INDIA PVT. LTD.
603
{1978] 4 SCC 36 and Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Oovernor of A
Delhi, {198012 SCC 167, relied upon
2. 1. While the jurisdiction is sought to be taken away, a strict
con~truction of the provision of the statute is essential. 1615-G)
2.2. TRAI Act and various orders made thereunder are required to be B
read conjointly with a view to give harmonious and purposive construction
thereto. {617-H)
2.3. The definition of a term in one statute cannot be used as a guide
for construction of a same term in another statute particularly in a case where
statutes have been enacted for different purposes.1618-B]
C
Hari Khemu Gawali v. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bombay and Anr.,
AI~ (1956) SC 559; Mis. MSCO. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., (1985)
1 SCC 51; Maheshwari Fish Seed Farm v. T.N. Electricity Board and Anr.,
(2004] 4 SCC 705 and Tata Consultancy Services v. State of A.P. [2005] l D
sec 308, followed
Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi v. K. T.
Kosa/ram and Ors., (1970) 3 SCC 82 and Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Union
of India, (1974) 1SCC468, referred to.
E
Sifsilk Ltd. v. Textiles Committee and Ors., (1989) Supp 10 SCC 168
held in applicable.
3.1. What is excluded is a complaint of an individual consumer and not
a group of consumers and thus TDSAT would be entitled to entertain a
complaint by a group of consumers against a service provide. (615-G]
p
4.1. The 'consumer' as defined in the Register of Interconnect
Agreements (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Regulation, 2004 issued by
TRAI to mean any person who is a subscriber of any broadcasting service in
the country would prevail over the definition of a 'consumer' under the 1986
~~~
G
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, 119941 4 sec 225,
distinguished
4.2. So long, TRAI does not itself make any distinction between
consumers and commercial consumers and does not fix different tariffs, the H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A question that a category of users being commercial users/subscribers being
identified so as to exclude the applicability ofTRAI Act does not and cannot
arise. The Tariff Orders of2004 did not define the words" cable subscribers"
and, thus, no distinction was expressly provided between ordinary cable
consumer and commercial cable consumer. The nature of supply of TV signals
B is not distinct and different rather it is same both for domestic consumers
and commercial consumers. (616-H; 617-A-B; DJ
c
D
4.3. Commercial cable subscribers are not outside the purview of
regulatory jurisdiction of TRAI otherwise the purport and object for which
the TRAI Act was enacted would be defeated. [620-G-Hj
5.1. When a power is required to be exercised in a particular manner,
the same has to be exercised in that manner or not at all. TDSAT having not
exercised its appellate jurisdiction neither could have issued any direction
nor could Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.